Appeal No. 1999-1753
Application No. 08/515,815
called for in paragraph (e) of claim 221, as well as a
reworking of the manner in which the articulated arm of
Stedman moves in order to fully utilize the grabber means of
Holtom in the manner contemplated by that reference (see
Figures 1-4 of Holtom). From our perspective, the only
suggestion for combining selected pieces from the Stedman and
Holtom references together in a manner that would yield the
claimed apparatus is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded
one who first viewed appellants’ disclosure. This, of course,
is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Dutton reference additionally relied upon by the
examiner does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Stedman
and Holtom. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing §
103 rejection of claim 22, or claims 7, 9 and 23 that depend
therefrom.
We have also reviewed the Bay-Schmith reference
additionally cited against claim 8 and 13, and the Richards
1Note that the grasping apparatus of Stedman is merely
suspended under the influence of gravity from the free end of
the arm by pivot pin 36.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007